Re: "super" pkgs (was Re: Back to RedHat)
Quoting Federico Di Gregorio (fog@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it):
> On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Quoting Federico Di Gregorio (fog@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it):
> > > IMHO "super" packages are a very good *local* solution (I use
> > > them too) but for the Offcial Dist I would like to see implemented
> > > something that doesn't require an empty .deb file.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because I don't like very much fast-and-ugly hacks. If the .deb is
> required for some reason it is wellcome, if it is only there because
> dpkg requires a valid .deb let's patch dpkg and remove it.
But what harm does an empty .deb cause? Why is it ugly? And if you don't
download a .deb with dependancy info to get your superpackage, what do
you download? Are we going to have a new file format? Seems like a lot
of work to do something we can _already_ do.
> > > Maybe a flag in the Package entry ("Super: yes" ?) that tells dpkg and
> > > apt to NOT search for the .deb?
> >
> > So it can't be used without a major upgrade...
>
> Why? Super packages can depend opn the right version of dpkg/apt.
Why should everyone have to upgrade dpkg just to use superpackages? It
would be nice if you could drop them right into the existing system.
Mike Stone
Reply to: